Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:08:07 +0100 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] lockref: use cmpxchg64 explicitly for lockless updates |
| |
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 07:11:32PM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > The cmpxchg() function tends not to support 64-bit arguments on 32-bit > > architectures. This could be either due to use of unsigned long arguments > > (like on ARM) or lack of instruction support (cmpxchgq on x86). However, > > these architectures may implement a specific cmpxchg64() function to > > provide 64-bit cmpxchg support instead > > I'm certainly ok with this, but I wonder how much point there is to > use the cmpxchg alternatives for 32-bit architectures at all... > > From a performance standpoint, lockref really is expected to mainly > help with big machines. Only insane people would do big machines with > 32-bit kernels these days.
Our definitions of "big" machines probably differ significantly, but it would be interesting to see if this *does* make a difference on some of the multi-cluster ARMv7 hardware. Unfortunately, my development boards are all I/O bound, so I'll need to leave a strategically placed crate of non-poisoned beer next to the server guys' office...
> Of course, it may be that cmpxchg is actually faster on some > architectures, but at least on x86-32, cmpxchg8b is traditionally > quite slow.
On ARMv7, our double-word exclusives shouldn't be slower than the word exclusives (hell, everything apart from the machine registers will be >= 64-bit).
> In other words, I'd actually like to see some numbers if there are > loads where this actually helps and matters...
That's fair enough; I just saw the new lockref stuff, thought "that's a cool hack" then looked at playing with it on ARM. I'll go see what this AIM7 thing is all about...
Cheers,
Will
| |